TOW #14: 'Affluenza' isn't as crazy as it sounds

'Affluenza' isn't as crazy as it sounds

Russia Times reporting on the controversial case of Ethan Couch.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/16153654/image/102276016-ethan-couch-avoids-jail-time-thanks-to-affluenza-defense

"Affluenza" is a term coined in the 1970s to encapsulate an odd, "affluent-influenza" that supposedly affects young, wealthy kids and their lack of motivation due to a poor upbringing. A benign idea, until some desperate attorney pulls it out of nowhere to defend a minor accused of four counts of intoxicated manslaughter. In his article, Danny Cevallos attempts to explain the court system and why a bout of affluenza might actually be a legitimate mitigation of punishment. Danny Cevallos is a legal analyst that currently works for CNN. He is a criminal defense attorney, which qualifies him to talk about a recent court case involving 16-year-old Ethan Couch, charged with hitting and killing four innocent people while driving under the influence of alcohol. Couch walked away with 10 years of probation rather than 20 years of prison, primarily because of his claim of affluenza. Cevallos uses this incident to comment on several broader ideas regarding both affluent children and juvenile courts. His purpose is to explain the reasoning behind affluenza and – more importantly – to comment on the current state of the juvenile court system. Cevallos wrote his opinion editorial for a broad audience: anyone who is or knows a child, wealthy or not; anyone in the legal system as a whole; even anyone who has heard about the controversial case of Ethan Couch. To portray his view on the juvenile court system, Cevallos uses anecdote-like medical studies and his own personal knowledge on the defensive side on court cases with a focus on juvenile cases. Although Cevallos's article kept me interested, that wasn't his purpose. Considering the fact that Cevallos has experience in law and writing, this article should have been spot-on. However, I feel as though Cevallos set out with one purpose (to explain his view on affluenza) and ended up somewhat off topic (describing and revamping the entire juvenile court system). Regardless, I do think his use of medical studies as factual anecdotes was very effective at forwarding his purpose. 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/18/opinion/cevallos-case-for-affluenza/index.html?hpt=op_bn5

TOW #13: The Selling of Attention Deficit Disorder

The Selling of Attention Deficit Disorder

How far is too far with aggressive marketing?

http://davidmallenmd.blogspot.com/2011/01/adhd-now-you-see-it-now-you-dont.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/health/the-selling-of-attention-deficit-disorder.html?emc=eta1&_r=0

     How many children in the United States really have ADHD, not just mis-identified chronic laziness? It wouldn't actually matter (after all, it's their life) except that the drugs that treat ADHD are actually dangerous to those who don't have ADHD. In his essay, "The Selling of Attention Deficit Disorder," Alan Schwarz asserts that normal impatience in children now leads many parents to justify giving potentially harmful drugs to their non-ADHD children following a suspiciously successful ADHD drug campaign. Alan Schwarz is a New York Times writer known for his focus on injuries (specifically concussions) in sports (particularly football) and his nomination for a Pulitzer prize. The advertisements in the campaigns Schwarz addresses claim that poor grades are a sign of an attention deficit disorder and therefore justify taking powerful stimulants such as Adderall or Focalin– which is, of course, false. And it's not like these pharmaceutical companies that market drugs such as Adderall or Focalin aim to hurt children; in fact, their goal is arguably more sinister: they're in it entirely for the money, meaning they could care less if a non-ADHD child uses an ADHD drug. 

     The primary reason that these companies can "get away" with over-marketing their product is because it's generally agreed upon that there is no definitive way to test for ADHD, meaning there's a lot left to interpretation, or misinterpretation in this case. Schwarz's purpose in writing this essay was to inform the audience, which includes all parents and ADHD/ADD people in the United States, that advertisements for drugs are just like advertisements for anything else; the advertiser just wants you to buy and use their product and they could generally care less whether or not it hurts you. Although Schwarz's message is cynical, it does hold some truth to it. Besides the obvious example, Schwartz means to show the reader how to be a consumer, and an educated one at that. 

     Schwarz uses statistics, anecdotes, and dramatic diction to inform his readers of the dark world of false marketing, particularly in such a serious context of potential drug harm and abuse. His use of statistics is apparent throughout his essay, as is his use of anecdotes. His dramatic diction is especially effective when he dissects, so to speak, how Adderall came to be called Adderall. He writes, "All. For A.D.D. A.D.D. for All. Adderall." I believe, without the slightest hint of a doubt, that Schwarz accomplished his purpose. The primary reason I believe this because, besides his use of rhetorical devices, he addresses the counterargument (that ADHD is an underrated and underdiagnosed disorder) in such a way that makes his argument seem even more legitimate, truly using the opposition's own forces as fuel for his argument. Overall, and interesting, well-written, effective essay. 

TOW #12: "Why love one but eat the other?"

Why Love One But Eat The Other?

An Advertisement by Mercy For Animals

This advertisement appeals specifically to pet owners and animal enthusiasts.

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/images/whyloveNYCBus.jpg

For many people, being a vegetarian simply isn't an option. For others, it's the only option. In an advertisement by Mercy For Animals, a non-profit organization, vegetarianism is projected as the logical, responsible, and emotionally "fair" option. Mercy For Animals is committed to spreading the idea of making animal-friendly (vegetarian) food choices through their various pro-vegetarian campaigns. In 2011, Mercy For Animals was named one of the most impactful organizations for animal welfare by Philanthropedia. One could argue that the ongoing debate between meat-seeking carnivores and animal-hugging herbivores has never been more intense. Every day, more and more information is surfacing about the controversial treatment of animals that are raised for food. This heart-wrenching advertisement attempts to sway meat-eaters towards the vegetarian path. Mercy For Animal's purpose of making and distributing this advertisement is to cast doubt into the minds of non-vegetarians. This advertisement appeals specifically to pet owners, who might look at this ad and realize that their beloved animals aren't that different from those they eat, likely on a daily basis. Also, the creators of this ad were very careful with which animals they used– dogs are one of the most widely owned pets, and bacon (the pig) is very popular across America– which serves to broaden the audience of their advertisement. Juxtaposition is the primary device that this advertisement employs. Putting a well-loved pet right next to meat makes for a dramatic and effective ad. The large text saying "Why love one but eat the other?" adds to the drama of the ad, but it also reinforces the previously mentioned juxtaposition. It didn't need to say which animal each part of the question referred to, which works excellently off the viewer's previous knowledge. I believe this ad had ever success it could have with respect to formatting and phrasing, but I believe this ad is ineffective because of its content. Upon further thought, I rationalized and reasoned and came to an answer to the question posed: one is domesticated, one is not. After removing the suspense and thinking through the message, the ad loses it's "shine".

TOW #11: "Why Go Out?"

The book Sheila Heti uses in her speech to compare smoking and socialization.

http://www.penguin.co.uk/static/cs/uk/0/minisites/52books/fresh_starts/allen_carrs_easy_way_to_stop_smoking.html

Pajamas. Comfort. Relaxation. All of these things are associated with solitude, not socialization. In her brilliant speech to the audience of Trampoline Hall in New York in 2006, Sheila Heti addresses each audience member's introverted side. Can you actually "quit people" like you can quit smoking? Heti compares these two ideas while addressing the obvious topic of her speech: why go out? Heti is a Canadian writer and editor. At the University of Toronto, she studied art history and philosophy. She currently works for The Believer where she is Interviews Editor. With her audience established as introverts, or at the very least people with an introverted side to them, Heti aims to achieve two different purposes, one explicit, one implicit. She explicitly wants to give the reader an opportunity to ponder why we, namely the audience, do or do not seek out social interaction. Implicitly, Heti wants to make a statement about the human condition. She discusses the idea of how each individual fits into society. In her speech, besides how she actually presented the speech, Heti uses parallel structure, anecdotes, and analogies to share her message on social interaction. Her parallel structure is formed by her methodical approach to, for example, her answers to various self-imposed questions. The anecdote Heti describes is about a friend who advertises a social-skills class as a charades game night. Heti points out flaws and similarities between quitting smoking and quitting people through her recalling of a book she read about how to quit smoking. Of the devices Heti used, I believe she used the analogy most effectively. It struck me as humorous that Heti would compare avoiding social situations as "quitting people" as though people were destructive and addictive and necessary to your health. As Heti makes her claim, the reader realizes that people can be destructive (mean), that people can be addictive (loosing someone?), and that, maybe, people can be unnecessary.  

http://www.sheilaheti.net/whygoout2.html

TOW #10: "Up on the Roof"

Flourishing rooftop gardens (like this one) vastly improve the quality of city life in Philadelphia.

http://blog.gardenmediagroup.com/2012/08/roof-top-gardens-flourish-from-hong.html

In a world where cities blossom rapidly every day at the sacrifice of the environment, it is not uncommon to feel overwhelmed and depressed by the lack of nature. By destroying preexisting habitats only to create environmentally-deprecating centers for pollution, not only are we (being citizens of cities and inhabitants of Earth) helping to cause a (potential) global crisis, but we are making the world an arguably more depressing space. Verlyn Klinkenborg proposes a solution to an urban-environmental conflict through his investigation of rooftop gardens, called “living roofs,” that are present in forward-looking cities such as Vancouver. These garden are quickly taking root on the roofs of progressive cities across the world. Klinkenborg’s purpose in writing “Up on the Roof” is to inform the readers of the benefits of rooftop gardens in large cities. To demonstrate the pros of “living roofs” (with the idea that anything other than a roof with a garden is a “dead roof’) Klinkenborg uses examples to demonstrate how specific instances of these rooftop gardens work and improve city life. Also, Klinkenborg lays out his essay chronologically, moving through logos-generating reasons that explain, for example, how rooftop gardens “enhance the urban soundscape”, or how they are environmentally beneficial. Klinkenborg proposes an interesting concept in the form of a systematic argument in which he addresses both his side of the concept of green rooftops and the counterargument. For this reason, I believe he accomplished his purpose. I now see that cities don’t have to be epicenters of pollution; maybe natural environments and urban environments can actually coexist. City goers and environment lovers would constitute this article’s audience. This article is only of interest to a very specific type of audience, although the actual number of people it would interest (since cities are enormous) is much larger.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/05/green-roofs/klinkenborg-text

TOW #9: We Are All Plagiarists

With such a massive amount of information on the internet, what happens when two ideas are a little too similar?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/cartoonists/2013/11/we-are-all-plagiarists.html

Plagiarism is a feared word. It implies something very sinister. How can everyone be a plagiarist? Robert Mankoff explores what plagiarism means, particularly in a world where so much has already been said. Mankoff believes that the difference between plagiarism and coincidence is intent. In a world with an infinite number of ideas spinning around the internet, how does one effectively avoid plagiarism? Unless, like an unfortunate cartoon editor described in Mankoff's essay, "We Are All Plagiarists," you sort through every last publication within a certain range, it's hard to be sure if you're plagiarizing. Mankoff's purpose is to highlight a gray area that has arisen. What qualifies as intent to do something, not just in terms of plagiarism, is sometimes indiscernible from coincidence. Although he doesn't quite make any remarks regarding how to deal with this confusion, Mankoff does use his essay to at least highlight its importance. Robert Mankoff is an author, editor, and has worked as a cartoonist for The New Yorker for twenty years. In addition to his memoir which is set to come out in 2014, Mankoff has written a book about cartooning. Between his experience and dedication, Mankoff is considerably credible. The audience of "We Are All Plagiarists" is explicitly "we"; Mankoff meant to reach readers of The New Yorker and possibly even readers and writers in general. Anyone who reads or creates content would fall into Mankoff's intended audience. Mankoff highlights the importance of intent versus coincidence using a very effective anecdote. It worked because he wasn't telling the reader why this one aspect is important, but rather he shows the reader. Also, the author uses an interesting strategy in which he used a google search of the title of his essay, "We Are All Plagiarists," to prove his point. Not surprisingly, Mankoff hasn't written the only "We Are All Plagiarists," although he uses that idea to make a point that the only reason why he technically wasn't plagiarizing was because he didn't do so purposefully.

TOW #8: IRB Post

School of the Art Institute of Chicago, where David Sedaris graduated from and taught a writing workshop at.

http://www.artandeducation.net/announcement/school-of-the-art-institute-of-chicago’s-saic-call-for-applications/

The next three story-like chapters in David Sedaris's Me Talk Pretty One Day dealt primarily with Sedaris's early adulthood and the adjustments he did (or didn't) make. The purpose of the last two of the three chapters was primarily to show that change can be difficult by showing two (of his own) reactions to change: one in which he adapts and one in which he doesn't. Sedaris uses his own perspective to help him achieve his purpose. Had he written Me Talk Pretty One Day from anything perspective other than first person, he would not have been able to adequately demonstrate his reaction to, for example, the death of his beloved cat. Only he could make the audience understand his feelings. In addition, Sedaris makes blatant allusions in his appropriately-named chapter "The Learning Curve," in which he describes his attempt as a new teacher to teach a writing class through the show One Life to Live. Although I wasn't familiar with the show, his reference worked well enough since I understood at the very least that it wasn't related to writing. This part of Me Talk Pretty One Day was directed at readers who were either fresh out of college or entering into their first "real" job. In both cases, the audience has to be in the process of adjusting to some huge change. Although David Sedaris is in fact credible (as established in previous posts), his credibility as a teacher rather than an author falters in these chapters. He struggles to properly teach a college course on writing. This matters little overall, though, since Sedaris is previously proved to be credible. Sedaris definitely accomplished his purpose if only because I could relate to several of his experiences and feelings, such as his love for his cat. The main reason Sedaris was able to show that change is all about how you react and adjust to it is because he references and draws on so many familiar feelings and cultural aspects, such as the loss of a pet.